How can creation be credible when all the scientists believe in evolution?
Many scientists today, as in former times, believe in creation as outlined in the Bible. This is in spite of the fact that the media and the education system take an antagonistic stance to special creation. Hundreds of subscribers to the Creation Science Movement are scientists, including university professors and lecturers and other professionals, with doctorates in various scientific disciplines.
Science advances by observation, experimentation and measurement. A Creator is not subject to these scientific techniques. This does not mean that there is no Creator; simply that the original Creation event cannot be studied by scientific means.
Science deals in reproducible experiments. One-off events such as the origin of the Universe, Earth, life, mankind and other kinds of living things cannot be reproduced in the laboratory. Scientists can only speculate. The Big Bang theory and evolution theories are not testable. They are believed by faith – just like creation.
We have to ask which is more believable – to believe that once upon a time there was nothing that exploded into everything, that non-living chemicals organised themselves into the first living thing, and that from this all living kinds developed naturally – or rather that an intelligent Designer made everything.
Is there any scientific evidence that supports Creation?
There is no truly scientific evidence that disproves Creation. In cases where there is an apparent clash, one finds that the science is relying on unsubstantiated assumptions. Of course, science can never confirm any unrepeatable happening in the past.
The alternative to evolution by chance changes is deliberate design. Can we decide whether some system was designed by an intelligent mind? Darwin and his followers say that natural selection hones a system to perfection, so that it mimics design.
For living things that can interact with their environment, Paley’s watchmaker argument appears to have been invalidated. But is this so? Simple organic molecules like glycine can come about by chance chemical interaction, but complex bio-molecules are far too precisely constrained in their compositions to arise fully-formed by chance. Some enzymes are made up from dozens of component proteins, each essential and each very complex. Irreducible complexity needs a Designer. Information requires an Intelligence.
Surely the fossils prove evolution?
If the creation scenario is true, we would expect to find that the rock layers were deposited rapidly.
We would expect distinct kinds of fossilised creatures with no intermediate forms, and we would expect to see fewer kinds living today than in the fossil record, because of extinctions.
If, on the other hand, evolution theory is true, we would expect that the rock layers would have been laid down slowly over millions of years. We would expect that there would be an ongoing transition from fossil invertebrates changing into fish, then into amphibians and on to reptiles, to birds and beasts.
There would surely be an increase in the numbers of different kinds of animals with time, as Darwin’s ‘evolutionary tree’ branched out.
So what do we find?
- Rapid sedimentation is observed in the field and can be demonstrated in laboratory flumes.
- That the fossil links are still missing is the trade secret of palaeontology.
- Living kinds are just like their fossils – they haven’t evolved. Palaeontologists call this stasis.
- Fossil kinds are more numerous, and usually larger than their living counterparts.
Moreover, to make fossils, creatures must be buried rapidly to avoid rotting or being scavenged. A world-wide flood would create the right conditions. No, the fossils negate evolution.
But we know that the dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago, don’t we?
Evolution theory requires these millions of years, but the evidence for long ages is flawed. The rocks are dated by the fossils in them (e.g. dinosaurs from Triassic to Cretaceous, so 225 to 70 my BP). Yet fossils are dated by the rocks in which they are found. This is a circular argument! So-called absolute methods of dating rocks, such as radiometric dating, depend on assumptions that cannot be tested.
For example, the commonly used K-Ar method assumes that no argon gas (Ar) was present in the rock when it solidified, that the potassium (K) decayed at a steady known rate, and that no K or Ar entered or left the rock by leaching or out-gassing during those tens of millions of years. A lot of assumptions. In practice, dates obtained from recent lava flows whose histories are known have been wildly out.
It is admitted that only dating results that fit with expectation are published.
The Bible describes two dinosaurs in Job 40 & 41. One is a huge creature living in the marshes and having a tail like a cedar tree. The second is a fierce, scaly beast with rows of sharp teeth that flashes fire from its nostrils. History records many examples of dinosaurs also. Before the term dinosaur was coined by Richard Owen in the 19th century, these terrible lizards were called dragons.
But we know that domestic dogs evolved from wolves, and finch beaks evolved to suit the available food, don’t we?
A given characteristic in a plant or animal may be expressed by more than one gene, called alleles. When dogs are artificially bred, or natural selection changes finches, some of the alleles are lost from the individuals. Wild kinds have built-in variability, while selected species have less variability. If their environment changes, inbred plants and animals become more vulnerable and less fit. But there are limits to change, so that canines are always canines (wolves, dog breeds, foxes etc.) and finches are never other than finches. In-breeding involves a loss of genetic information. Evolution would require a gain of information from somewhere.
What about genetic mutations acted upon by natural selection?
Mutations in genes involve a change in a precisely coded system. This results in a loss of information whose effects may range from neutral to lethal. There is never a gain in information since that would require an input from an intelligent source. Mutant fruit flies are never anything other than fruit flies – usually damaged or dead ones.
Even bishops say the story of Adam and Eve is a myth. What do creationists say?
The Bible claims that the Lord Jesus Christ created everything. When He was asked about divorce, He referred back to Genesis 1 & 2 with Adam and Eve. The writers of the New Testament consistently treat Adam and Eve as real people, too. In the NT book of Hebrews, Cain and Abel, Enoch and Noah are taken as historical figures with family lines through Abraham and David to Christ.
The Genesis account says God made everything in six days as a pattern for man’s working week, and the fourth Commandment of Exodus 20 confirms this. God pronounced His work very good, but the disobedience of our first parents led to degeneration and death. God came as a man to redeem that curse. Not to believe in Adam and Eve denies the Fall and therefore the need for Christ’s death in our place. His resurrection is one of the best documented facts of history.
Where can I find out more?
We highly recommend reading some of our Journals or a visit to the Shop.
Plus theres always a warm welcome awaiting if you come and visit us at the dedicated Genesis Expo in Portsmouth.